Appeal No. 1999-1499
Application No. 08/764,736
therefore, sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 15, 16
and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We now consider the examiner's rejection of dependent
claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Borg-Warner in view of Dutkiewicz. Claim 12 recites that the
finger of appellants' invention is disposed between the arms
of the second yoke, and that the finger extends into a
depression on an outer face of the wing bearing. Thus, claim
12 recites essentially the same subject matter as that of
independent
claim 1. As we noted in our analysis of the rejection of
independent claim 1, the examiner was aware of the fact that
these features are lacking in the Borg-Warner reference and
turned to the teaching of Dutkiewicz for a finger 20c located
between arms 20a of yoke 20. The examiner then concluded that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made, to have modified Borg-
Warner by providing a finger between the yoke arms, as taught
by Dutkiewicz. Again, we do not agree. As we concluded above
in our analysis of the examiner's rejection of claim 1 under
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007